BYUtx wrote:

basketball schmasketball. Even schools like Duke earn more revenue from football for being in a BCS conference than they do in men's BB.

Dook loses money on football almost every year. Revenue is another word for gross income. You need to look at net income. It's no secret that basketball is more lucrative than football for the majority of schools in this country. That's why there are so many more Division I basketball programs than there are football programs.

BYUtx wrote:

I would love to hear a good argument that explains why perennial losers like UCONN, Rutgers, Kansas, and Wake Forest have seen rapid improvement, without ANY regard to their BCS membership.

One word... coaching.

Ygridiron4ever wrote:

I think BYU wants in!

I wish I knew the grand scheme behind the changes like the "Ricks to BYUID" for example.

I think someone wants the main campus to be a research institution, and the other campuses will do most of the undergraduate educating (I think the article that started this post failed to mentioned that BYU now has 4 campuses). when I started my Ph.D. program at BYU in 1992, there were only 120 doctoral students (not counting JD candidates - and yes a lawyer is a doctor, as much as I am, anyway) on the whole campus!

That is definitely changing, and I am excited for the day when BYU, the Church, and Intermountain Health Care announce a new system of research units in several local hospitals (just dreaming here, don't cut my head off if you have proof that such a thing will never happen).

Lots of smart and good kids from my area aren't getting in to Provo - going to ID, SLC, or Hawaii instead.

There's got to be a plan behind the significant changes in the overall structure of BYU.

There were a couple of interesting threads here in the last month about the value of the football program in meeting the University's and Church's goals; I think having BYU as strong as any University on levels such as academics, research, and athletic conference affiliation are good for the church and some of its members. I know it would make my Ph.D. a little stronger!

I think BYU wants in!

I think your dreaming.

BYU will never be a major player as a "research university" for one reason, Federal research grants come with too many strings attached. The Church has always avoided putting BYU in a position where the Feds can dictate what everything. I don't see that problem going away. Meantime, BYU continues to seek corporate and private grants but they don't add up to much compared with Federal largess.

Yup, I'll try to break it to you gently. Your and my taxes are supporting yewtah, UCLA, USC, Stanford & the rest of those "research universities".

Nevermind-I'm now bored of this thread.

Metal Bubba wrote:

BYUtx wrote:

basketball schmasketball. Even schools like Duke earn more revenue from football for being in a BCS conference than they do in men's BB.

Dook loses money on football almost every year. Revenue is another word for gross income. You need to look at net income. It's no secret that basketball is more lucrative than football for the majority of schools in this country. That's why there are so many more Division I basketball programs than there are football programs.

BYUtx wrote:

I would love to hear a good argument that explains why perennial losers like UCONN, Rutgers, Kansas, and Wake Forest have seen rapid improvement, without ANY regard to their BCS membership.

One word... coaching.

You are correct, sir!!!

mormonrasta wrote:

Metal Bubba wrote:

BYUtx wrote:

basketball schmasketball. Even schools like Duke earn more revenue from football for being in a BCS conference than they do in men's BB.

Dook loses money on football almost every year. Revenue is another word for gross income. You need to look at net income. It's no secret that basketball is more lucrative than football for the majority of schools in this country. That's why there are so many more Division I basketball programs than there are football programs.

BYUtx wrote:

I would love to hear a good argument that explains why perennial losers like UCONN, Rutgers, Kansas, and Wake Forest have seen rapid improvement, without ANY regard to their BCS membership.

One word... coaching.

You are correct, sir!!!

The jury is out on those programs right now. Let's see what happens over the next two or three years to determine if they have built a program, or if they just have some special players. Some teams peak for a couple of years because they had some great players and then drop off the radar again once those players are gone.

mormonrasta wrote:

Metal Bubba wrote:

BYUtx wrote:

I would love to hear a good argument that explains why perennial losers like UCONN, Rutgers, Kansas, and Wake Forest have seen rapid improvement, without ANY regard to their BCS membership.

One word... coaching.

You are correct, sir!!!

Humorously enough, I agree with all three of you.
I made this comment on a thread a few months ago:

The ACTUAL influence that the BCS SYSTEM is imposing on ALL of collegiate athletics due to quality recruits going to fewer and fewer non-power schools, even LESS funding for non-power programs thanks to the current Bowl payout setup, better coaches abandoning non-power posts, BCS schools not being interested in potential ignominious losses, ETC... has caused a severe downturn in the actual competitive capacity of non-power teams.

Conversely, any recruit that isn't good enough to go to one of the 10-15 "royal" BCS schools won't even give a non-BCS school a second thought. Wake Forest and a shot at a BCS game or Fresno State and a shot at the Aunt Jemima Syrup Bowl is kindof a no brainer. Same goes for the play callers. Now, I don't disagree at all that UConn and Wake Forest are accomplishing what they're accomplishing due in large measure to an improvement in coaching. I also believe, as my previous quote indicates, that coaching is just one of the many facets of the developing advantage of BCS affiliation. Even a coach at a "bad" BCS school is STILL taken more seriously than a coach that has made a non-BCS school great.